The Court issued notable opinions in two criminal cases today. The first deals with the required "knowledge" element of a felony hit-and-run offense, and the second clarifies what a criminal defendant must show to establish standing to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained by an illegal search.
The State v. Mondor
In Mondor, the Court held that a hit-and-run indictment that fails to specifically allege knowledge of involvement in an accident is not subject to dismissal by general demurrer. Writing for the Court, Justice Warren held that "OCGA § 40-6-270 requires knowledge of an accident that
resulted in at least one of three enumerated consequences: injury,
death, or damage . . . because Count 2 recites the statutory
language setting out all of the elements of subsections (a) and (b) of
OCGA § 40-6-270, including the mens rea element, that count is
sufficient to withstand a general demurrer."
Bourassa v. State
In Bourassa, the Court clarified what a defendant must show to establish standing to challenge the admission of evidence obtained by an illegal search. Writing for the Court, Justice Warren explained that a defendant may rely on evidence offered by the state (such as testimony a voice on the phone was the defendant's). While "the Court of Appeals was
correct to the extent it suggested that Bourassa could not rely on a
mere position, contention, or theory of the State" to establish standing, uncontested evidence submitted by the state is sufficient.
Murder Convictions
S18G0976. BUDHANI v. THE STATE
S19A0331. ELKINS v. THE STATE
No comments:
Post a Comment